Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

This case is before the Authority on a timely application for review
filed by the Federal Firefighters Association, Independent, Local 57 (FFA)
pursuant to section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The
application seeks review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order on FFA's
petition for certification of representative. The Activity filed an opposition
to FFA's application for review.

II. Facts

A. Regional Director's Decision

The FFA sought to represent a unit of all nonprofessional General
Schedule employees of the Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi, Fire
Department, including Fire Captains and supervisory firefighters, GS-6. Since
1971, these employees have been part of a base-wide unit represented by the
National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1296 (NFFE).

The Regional Director dismissed FFA's petition. She found that the
established base-wide bargaining unit remained appropriate and that no unusual
circumstances were present to justify the severance of the petitioned-for
employees from the established bargaining unit. In support of her
determination, the Regional Director cited Authority precedent, including the
Authority's decision in Library of Congress, 16 FLRA 429 (1984).

B. Application for Review

In its application, FFA contends that compelling reasons exist within
the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for
granting its application. First, the FFA contends that the Regional Director's
decision represents a departure from Authority precedent. In support of its
position, FFA cites the Authority's decisions in Department of the Navy, Naval
Station, Norfolk, Virginia, 14 FLRA 702 (1984) and Panama Canal Commission, 5
FLRA 104 (1981). Second, FFA contends that the Regional Director's decision
rests on the unsubstantiated and erroneous factual conclusion that NFFE fairly
and adequately represents the petitioned-for employees. Finally, FFA
essentially contends that the Authority should reconsider its policy requiring
"unusual circumstances" to justify separating a unit. It argues that such an
approach substantially interferes with the employees' right to determine how
they will be most effectively represented and with the congressional intent
that the desires of employees should be determinative where the appropriateness
of a larger unit and that of a smaller unit are equal. In support of its
position, FFA cites the Authority decision in Department of Defense, Department
of the Army, 193rd Infantry Brigade (Panama), 7 FLRA 471 (1981).

III. Analysis and Conclusions

We conclude that no compelling reasons exist within the meaning of
section 2422.17(c) for granting FFA's application for review. In a recent
decision, Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station, Point Mugu, California, 26
FLRA No. 77 (1987), we denied a similar application for review which involved a
virtually identical factual situation and decision by the Regional Director and
in which the petitioner raised the same contentions and arguments as raised
here. Thus, for reasons more fully discussed in Department of the Navy and
since FFA has not supported its contention that the Regional Director's
decision rested on the unsubstantiated and erroneous factual conclusion
that NFFE fairly and adequately represented the petitioned-for employees, we
will deny the application for review.

IV. Order

The application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order
is denied.